Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 17, 1988)
Readers take shots at basketball writer, letter Don’t blame Bargen for basketball loss Mike Kluck’s account of the Ne braska-Athletes in action basketball game (DN, Nov. 11) was a “night mare” itself to those attending the game, those who understand the game, and those who support what Comhusker coach Danny Nee is trying to accomplish. It appears that Kluck may not fit into any of those categories. Worse, those who were not able to attend the game were given a misrep resentation of what really happened. To Danny Nee’s credit, he used the exhibition as an opportunity to im prove the depth on his squad. Thanks to incompetent reporting, whatever confidence Jed Bargcn may have gained from being called on by Nee was probably negated. Blaming Bargen for this loss, and one play in particular, is akin to blam ing Michael Dukakis’ loss on the fail ure to carry South Dakota. In fact, itis similar to condemning The Daily Nebraskan as worthless reading on the basis of this one article. Kluck, we are not looking for a journalistic Dick Vitale — especially one with little insight into the great roundball sport. Do us a favor and give us facts, statistics and quotes — and leave it at that. Jim Boeve graduate student mathematics and statistics Editor’s note: Although Mike Kluck did the reporting for the bas ketball story, it was written by DN senior reporter Jeff A pel. Apel’s byline was left off because of space reasons. Former NU player blasts sports writer This is in reference to the article that Mike Kluck wrote about the Nebraska basketball team’s loss to Athletes in Action (DN, Nov. 11). I find it very hard to fathom any body, let alone a so-called sports writer, to hiftimple-mindcd enough to believe that a basketball game can be lost because of the play of one athlete. People like Kluck who believe a game is lost because of the one play are so ignorant of the game that it doesn't even warrant discussion. I’m going to say what I think, anyway. As many people know, there are 40 minutes in a college basketball game (that's 20 minutes in each half, in case you didn’t know, kluck). During the com se of a game there arc many plays and many shots, and to say that any one of the possessions lost a game is idiotic. It is a combination of plays that either wins or loses a game, not a single possession. If other players wouldn’t have made some turnovers or missed some shots earlier in the Athletes in Action game, it would never have gone into overtime. If you have any trouble under standing anything you have just read, Kluck, feel free to give me a call. Jeff Rekcweg former Nebraska basketball player Get a clue Mike Kluck This is in regards to Mike Kluck’s article on the Nebraska basketball team ’ s loss to Athletes in Action (DN, Nov. 11). First of all, I would like to commend you for quoting the score (104-102 in overtime) correctly. Good work! As for the rest of your article — how can you honestly say the loss came as the result of one player’s (Jed Bargen’s) missed shot? By looking at the statistics, you will see that as a team, the Com huskers shot 41-of-87 from the field for 47.1 percent. There were a total of 46 missed shots by the nine players who took them. So, how can you consistently refer to one missed shot as the one that “lost the game” in your ‘‘editorial ?” Bargen was l-of-2 from the field, which was a better shooting percentage than the rest of the team. Wake up, Kluck! There were many mental mistakes that went unre ported in your article: Bad passes, a charge and numerous other missed shots in the final seconds of regula tion. It just might have been the over time that contributed to the loss. In an article about the Huskers’ Eric Johnson earlier in the week, he said something that Kluck could use in his future writings; “We win and lose as a team.” Take it to heart and use it the next time you decide to report sports. Lisa Hollestelle sophomore actuarial science UNL grad chastises reader’s definition Andrew Meyer cites a law that bans women from combat duty in the armed forces in a letter (DN, Nov. 14) and pretends that this proves that women demand equal rights but re ject equal responsibilities. First, his facts are confused. This legislation was passed at a lime when the (first) Equal Rights Amendment was being debated in stalchouses across the country; it was introduced by conservatives as an attempt to squelch public support for the ERA. Most women’s groups opposed the bill. More importantly it’s just wrong to say that women don’t accept re sponsibility. If Meyer insists on de fining “responsibility” as willing to die for others, I suggest he count the * lumber of women through history who died in childbirth so that their husbands would have big strong sons to help them. That, however, is not the point Responsibility doesn’t entail masochism. A responsible person is one who does what she knows is right and does it for the right reasons. It’s contemptible to pretend that respon sibility is something that can be be stowed on some and removed from others by an act of Congress, just as it’s wrong to withhold civil rights from 51 percent of the people just because a lot of politicians say it’s OK. Jim Johnson Lincoln UNL class.of 1979 Meyer’s argument contested as limited In response to the letter by Andrew Meyer (DN, Nov. 14) about equal rights and equal combat in the mili tary: Meyer, what’s your military experience? Obviously, it is very limited. As a female and a member of the military. I must point out that it would take an act of God and Congress to place women in an “actual” combat situation. I didn’t join the military to prove anything. I wanted to take an active pan in serving my country and as a result of that I have achieved a tre mendous sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. During the course of my training, I have been shot at, gassed and attacked by terrorists. But after all, that was only simulated combat. Do you want me to feel cheated? Carry on, Meyer. I think your ship’s gone out to sea. Andrea Taylor junior human developmenl/rehabilitaiion lette^ I The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others. Letters will be selected for publi cation on the basis of clarity, original ity, timeliness and space available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit all material submitted. Readers also are welcome to sub mit material as guest opinions. Whether material should run as a let ter or guest opinion, or not to run, is left to the editor’s discretion. Everything 1 and we mean everything is on sale! Our Biggest Sale of the Fall. Don't Miss It. * I This is our BIG sale of the fall. DON’T MISS IT! I r- " ' "" Mens Specials Long Sleeue Shirts values to $55 $ 19.90-24.90 Sweaters values to $47.50 $19.90-29.90 large group orig. $75-90 1/2 off Sweatshirts and knits turtles, mocks, and polo's __ values to $49.50 $24.90-29.90 Pants values to $55 $ 19.90-29.90 Shoes 30-50% off Leathers. values to $375 $ 198 279 Suits 100% Worsted Wools values $285$475 $149-279 Womens Specials Sweaters „ (Designers included) 5060% Off Knits values to $64 $39.90 Blouses values to $62 $19.90-49.90 Suafuis to $100 $29.9049.90 Pants . values to $110 $29.90-49.90 Skirts values to $98 $29.90-49.90 Shoes and Boots 50-60% Off Jeans values to $56 $19.90-29.90 Dresses c\Q-roO% Off 1-HPost^Nicket— 1 ». i in;* \ •»* <* ••» i'Downtown bincoln at) 1441s!. 14th